Saturday, February 14, 2015

Comparing Wellington & Auckland Waterfront Planning

Auckland Council had a big meeting covering a number of issues of interest to me on Thursday, 12th February. These included Queen Elizabeth Square, Central Wharves Strategy, and Expansion of Ports. I asked for and obtained speaking rights and was granted the opportunity of a 5 minute slot. This has been captured on Council's excellent live news feed from the meeting - and you can see the actual presentation - and questions here on video demand. These are the slides I presented (with one exception). I introduced the presentation by explaining that the work was some of the fruit from PhD research I am enrolled to do at School of Architecture and Planning at University of Auckland. The PhD is a planning study which compares approaches to waterfront urban regeneration at Auckland and Wellington.

Because my major objective in much of the work I am dedicated to in Auckland relates to the provision of effective public space and amenity, I began with this quote from a NZ Herald Editorial thirteen years ago. It argues for more green public space in Auckland's downtown waterfront area. There has been a wonderful little addition since that time - and that is Takutai Square in Britomart Precinct.

What is often forgotten as Council and Councillors grapple with Auckland's waterfront, is that this is the latest set of issues in a long history that stretches back more than 100 years, and where Auckland Harbour Board has played a critical and highly influential role. Learning from this history is important because Ports of Auckland (which was created from Auckland Harbour Board) continues to exert an excessive influence on the form and nature of Auckland's city waterfront. For example this diagram shows AHB plans from the 1960's which depict an urban form which would have delivered the sort of city form called for in the NZ Herald. You can see the low rise tower that was planned then across Quay Street from the Ferry Building. You can see an expansive Queen Elizabeth Square and significant planting. In my view this plan misses the opportunity of providing a large green space like Takutai Square, and it disrupts the linkage and urban form of Queen Street which - in my view - should continue past the CPO, across Quay Street and onto Queens Wharf. Nevertheless. AHB ditched this plan in favour of one which resulted in an enormous increase in commercial floor area, and corresponding loss in good quality public space. Public space has never been a priority for AHB or POAL. Nor should it be. Their objectives - especially POAL - are for it to be "a successful business". Public space however was a priority for Auckland City Council and still needs to be for amalgamated Auckland Council - which owns POAL. (This slide was not in my Council presentation for reasons of time pressure.)

This diagram shows some of the transactions that have occurred as AHB and POAL have changed the uses of various parts of the land that AHB has reclaimed over the years. AHB and POAL have pocketed large capital sums, and continue to extract significant rental revenues from reclaimed land assets. I have sought information about the proportion of POAL revenues that derive from its real estate business. But this information has been denied, because, apparently, it is not provided to its owner.

Over the years AHB reclaimed 162 hectares of the seabed in proximity to the central city - this is shown here as land to the north of the red line which in part is the site of Custom Street. Over the years much of this land - which was vested in AHB - has changed in use as summarised in the slide. In round numbers POAL now occupies about a third of what was reclaimed, streets and public amenities and publicly owned buildings (like the CPO) occupy another third, and the remaining third has been sold for private development.

The situation in Wellington is significantly different. You can read here a tiny part of my research findings. The quote from the Chairman of Wellington Harbour Board was the start of a process where the whole of Lambton Harbour and reclamations back to Jervois Quay was shifted from port use to civic use and development. Unlike the ad hoc approach that has been deployed by AHB and POAL. The 1986 quote is an extract from a legally binding agreement entered into between WHB and Wellington City Council which clearly commits both parties to working together to deliver open spaces, recreational facilities and suchlike for enjoyment by the public which would not otherwise be achievable.

My research interest was triggered in Auckland by Princes Wharf. I still find it extraordinary that Auckland authorities have not had the gumption to conduct a thorough enquiry into the Princes Wharf fiasco. The public is faced with a wall of silence. Reflection is an important part of good planning. Wisdom comes from checking what went according to plan and what didn't. Reputations all over the city would not be ruined with a useful dose of truth-seeking, but would help us all learn and not repeat the same planning mistakes. Which I see too clearly happening again now downtown. The artist's picture shows a Prince Wharf concept with huge amounts of public amenity that was published and attracted public support. The other photo shows what is there today. And it should be noted that the RMA plans called for 35% of Princes Wharf to be public space. The same sorts of quantitative promises are being made right now by Auckland Council over what will replace Queen Elizabeth Square. It's not about quantity guys, it's about quality. We have 35% public space all right - but how good it is?

For example these two images show what was promised for the public space within the Princes Wharf development - and what you see now if you are ever attracted to go down there. Talk about a phalanx of grey, and where public space is 100% "shared" with cars.

We need to learn from the past behaviours of AHB and POAL. But this learning should not be taken up by Auckland Council as its own raison d'etre. Which is what seems to be happening. This interesting observation (in the slide) from the previous Chairman of Wellington Harbour Board explains the bind we have been in, here in Auckland. It explains the motivations behind POAL and AHB behaviours. It explains their rationale. We need to understand it for what it is, and work around it and against it in the broader public interest. This is not to say that Auckland's port should move somewhere else, but it is to say that it needs to be contained and controlled. Because they won't control themselves. They are not incentivised to curb their expansionist behaviours or to use their land efficiently for port purposes only. They are motivated to act like a seaside property speculator. Council has the duty, powers and responsibility to control POAL.

The Wellington story is not a fairytale. It is littered with problems, issues and famous public confrontations. My research has brought to light stories that raged in local newspapers and on the ground. One was the ham-fisted effort to build a Retail and Events Centre on its Queens Wharf. Another related to plans pushed by Wellington's Waterfront Development Agency for a waterfront tower. These and other issues culminated in a public meeting attended by a 1,000.

Wellington City Council recognised it had an issue, and took action which was strongly and effectively led by Mayor Blumsky.

This slide lists a few of the actions that resulted. Interestingly, at the Auckland meeting where I made this presentation, Committee Chair Penny Hulse - to her credit - saw the value in the idea of a Community Consultation Committee for Auckland

This slide lists major findings of the community consultation committee. It is important to note that this committee was made up of members of the great and the good. It was not a rabble of grumpy yachties for example. It was supported by Wellington City Council's urban design unit and staff. The reports that were produced, the way the Council acted and supported the committee, the reports it received, and the decisions it then took are exemplary and show a much sounder based way forward for Auckland Council than its present ad hoc and pragmatic approach.

One of the most significant outputs and outcomes of the community process was the production of the Lambton Harbour Open Space Master Plan. This was prepared with the Consultation Committee, Wellington City Council - and by a grouping of New Zealand's leading architects and landscape architects (Athfields, Megan Wraight and others). The image here is one part of it. Those who have been to Wellington will recognise that much of what you see there today, was envisaged in this plan - which significantly provides for at least 5 separate green spaces. Any building or commercial development is shown in outline, and how they might relate to the public spaces. But it is the public space design which sets the context for built development. Not the other way round as we see at present in Auckland CBD waterfront planning, where public space has become the poor cousin in urban planning and urban design.

My final slide summarised to the Auckland Development Committee what I think it can learn from its own history and from the more civic minded approach that has delivered to Wellington the waterfront that it now enjoys.

1 comment:

WAYNO
said...

the council owns part of POA?conflicts of interest?without green spaces, auckland will remain little better than san fransisco and LAgod help usbritomart and tank farm a great startthanks Joel

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Comparing Wellington & Auckland Waterfront Planning

Auckland Council had a big meeting covering a number of issues of interest to me on Thursday, 12th February. These included Queen Elizabeth Square, Central Wharves Strategy, and Expansion of Ports. I asked for and obtained speaking rights and was granted the opportunity of a 5 minute slot. This has been captured on Council's excellent live news feed from the meeting - and you can see the actual presentation - and questions here on video demand. These are the slides I presented (with one exception). I introduced the presentation by explaining that the work was some of the fruit from PhD research I am enrolled to do at School of Architecture and Planning at University of Auckland. The PhD is a planning study which compares approaches to waterfront urban regeneration at Auckland and Wellington.

Because my major objective in much of the work I am dedicated to in Auckland relates to the provision of effective public space and amenity, I began with this quote from a NZ Herald Editorial thirteen years ago. It argues for more green public space in Auckland's downtown waterfront area. There has been a wonderful little addition since that time - and that is Takutai Square in Britomart Precinct.

What is often forgotten as Council and Councillors grapple with Auckland's waterfront, is that this is the latest set of issues in a long history that stretches back more than 100 years, and where Auckland Harbour Board has played a critical and highly influential role. Learning from this history is important because Ports of Auckland (which was created from Auckland Harbour Board) continues to exert an excessive influence on the form and nature of Auckland's city waterfront. For example this diagram shows AHB plans from the 1960's which depict an urban form which would have delivered the sort of city form called for in the NZ Herald. You can see the low rise tower that was planned then across Quay Street from the Ferry Building. You can see an expansive Queen Elizabeth Square and significant planting. In my view this plan misses the opportunity of providing a large green space like Takutai Square, and it disrupts the linkage and urban form of Queen Street which - in my view - should continue past the CPO, across Quay Street and onto Queens Wharf. Nevertheless. AHB ditched this plan in favour of one which resulted in an enormous increase in commercial floor area, and corresponding loss in good quality public space. Public space has never been a priority for AHB or POAL. Nor should it be. Their objectives - especially POAL - are for it to be "a successful business". Public space however was a priority for Auckland City Council and still needs to be for amalgamated Auckland Council - which owns POAL. (This slide was not in my Council presentation for reasons of time pressure.)

This diagram shows some of the transactions that have occurred as AHB and POAL have changed the uses of various parts of the land that AHB has reclaimed over the years. AHB and POAL have pocketed large capital sums, and continue to extract significant rental revenues from reclaimed land assets. I have sought information about the proportion of POAL revenues that derive from its real estate business. But this information has been denied, because, apparently, it is not provided to its owner.

Over the years AHB reclaimed 162 hectares of the seabed in proximity to the central city - this is shown here as land to the north of the red line which in part is the site of Custom Street. Over the years much of this land - which was vested in AHB - has changed in use as summarised in the slide. In round numbers POAL now occupies about a third of what was reclaimed, streets and public amenities and publicly owned buildings (like the CPO) occupy another third, and the remaining third has been sold for private development.

The situation in Wellington is significantly different. You can read here a tiny part of my research findings. The quote from the Chairman of Wellington Harbour Board was the start of a process where the whole of Lambton Harbour and reclamations back to Jervois Quay was shifted from port use to civic use and development. Unlike the ad hoc approach that has been deployed by AHB and POAL. The 1986 quote is an extract from a legally binding agreement entered into between WHB and Wellington City Council which clearly commits both parties to working together to deliver open spaces, recreational facilities and suchlike for enjoyment by the public which would not otherwise be achievable.

My research interest was triggered in Auckland by Princes Wharf. I still find it extraordinary that Auckland authorities have not had the gumption to conduct a thorough enquiry into the Princes Wharf fiasco. The public is faced with a wall of silence. Reflection is an important part of good planning. Wisdom comes from checking what went according to plan and what didn't. Reputations all over the city would not be ruined with a useful dose of truth-seeking, but would help us all learn and not repeat the same planning mistakes. Which I see too clearly happening again now downtown. The artist's picture shows a Prince Wharf concept with huge amounts of public amenity that was published and attracted public support. The other photo shows what is there today. And it should be noted that the RMA plans called for 35% of Princes Wharf to be public space. The same sorts of quantitative promises are being made right now by Auckland Council over what will replace Queen Elizabeth Square. It's not about quantity guys, it's about quality. We have 35% public space all right - but how good it is?

For example these two images show what was promised for the public space within the Princes Wharf development - and what you see now if you are ever attracted to go down there. Talk about a phalanx of grey, and where public space is 100% "shared" with cars.

We need to learn from the past behaviours of AHB and POAL. But this learning should not be taken up by Auckland Council as its own raison d'etre. Which is what seems to be happening. This interesting observation (in the slide) from the previous Chairman of Wellington Harbour Board explains the bind we have been in, here in Auckland. It explains the motivations behind POAL and AHB behaviours. It explains their rationale. We need to understand it for what it is, and work around it and against it in the broader public interest. This is not to say that Auckland's port should move somewhere else, but it is to say that it needs to be contained and controlled. Because they won't control themselves. They are not incentivised to curb their expansionist behaviours or to use their land efficiently for port purposes only. They are motivated to act like a seaside property speculator. Council has the duty, powers and responsibility to control POAL.

The Wellington story is not a fairytale. It is littered with problems, issues and famous public confrontations. My research has brought to light stories that raged in local newspapers and on the ground. One was the ham-fisted effort to build a Retail and Events Centre on its Queens Wharf. Another related to plans pushed by Wellington's Waterfront Development Agency for a waterfront tower. These and other issues culminated in a public meeting attended by a 1,000.

Wellington City Council recognised it had an issue, and took action which was strongly and effectively led by Mayor Blumsky.

This slide lists a few of the actions that resulted. Interestingly, at the Auckland meeting where I made this presentation, Committee Chair Penny Hulse - to her credit - saw the value in the idea of a Community Consultation Committee for Auckland

This slide lists major findings of the community consultation committee. It is important to note that this committee was made up of members of the great and the good. It was not a rabble of grumpy yachties for example. It was supported by Wellington City Council's urban design unit and staff. The reports that were produced, the way the Council acted and supported the committee, the reports it received, and the decisions it then took are exemplary and show a much sounder based way forward for Auckland Council than its present ad hoc and pragmatic approach.

One of the most significant outputs and outcomes of the community process was the production of the Lambton Harbour Open Space Master Plan. This was prepared with the Consultation Committee, Wellington City Council - and by a grouping of New Zealand's leading architects and landscape architects (Athfields, Megan Wraight and others). The image here is one part of it. Those who have been to Wellington will recognise that much of what you see there today, was envisaged in this plan - which significantly provides for at least 5 separate green spaces. Any building or commercial development is shown in outline, and how they might relate to the public spaces. But it is the public space design which sets the context for built development. Not the other way round as we see at present in Auckland CBD waterfront planning, where public space has become the poor cousin in urban planning and urban design.

My final slide summarised to the Auckland Development Committee what I think it can learn from its own history and from the more civic minded approach that has delivered to Wellington the waterfront that it now enjoys.

New Postings: Email Update

About Me

Enjoy the challenges of planning, especially urban planning, and the process of engaging with its endless problems. No easy solutions here! Unlike my earlier life in physics - but then, again, maybe its solutions are like sticking plaster. Previous life for 12 years as elected councillor in Auckland local government. Re-qualified at University of Auckland as urban planner. Now senior policy analyst at NZ Planning Institute.